Today's mobile space is owned by the likes of Nokia, RIM, Apple, and Google. While some of these corporations have embraced some open source components, a full FLOSS solution has yet to gain traction. Why? Blogger Bradley M. Kuhn posts thoughtful analysis of the current state of Open Source in the mobile space.

I'm kind of disappointed with open source software these days.. It seems they stopped innovating, and are only creating technology for the sake of creating technology..

Innovation born from creating technology for the sake of creating technology.

Every technological advancement that immediately springs to mind has been created because someone thought "that kind of works, but wouldn't it work better if we added a bit of technology here"

Also, I think you're not taking into account that we're somewhat at a plateau in terms of development.
There isn't much that can be innovated which isn't just an evolutionary step.
Add to that the fact that open source generates less funding than proprietary solutions and that we are currently in a global recession, and it's not all that surprising that many releases are all about the "spit and polish" instead of huge revolutionary break-throughs.

And finally, I do think you can find innovative open source if you look for it: ZFS, dtrace, zones, xen, etc.
I don't know if most of the innovation appears to happen away from desktop because I'm more aware of enterprise solutions or if there is actually just not that much innovation on the desktop because most desktop users care about user experience and fancy desktop effects and theres better funding in enterprise solutions. But there is definitely still innovation on open source.

I really hope people on open source communities get that the user experience involves much more than just usability and unpolished eye candy.

user experience /IS/ usability and eye candy.

Everything else resides under the hood and is something only developers for that platform and techies/geeks would notice and/or care.

You have to remember exactly what a 'user' is when defining a user experience.

It's a pity you got market down though as, while I disagreed with nearly every point you've made, you do still raise an interesting argument.

That's a unfunded affirmation. People want things to work. They want to work <strong>with</strong> technology, not work <strong>for</strong> techonology. Apple is loved not because of the desktop effects, it's because of simplicity, well defined goals and technology that helps people get their stuff done.

This mentality of users want eye candy must stop. Eye candy without purpose just get in people's way. But if used to improve familiarity and fluidness on interfaces they can bring great value.

That's a unfunded affirmation. People want things to work. They want to work with technology, not work for techonology. Apple is loved not because of the desktop effects, it's because of simplicity, well defined goals and technology that helps people get their stuff done.

This mentality of users want eye candy must stop. Eye candy without purpose just get in people's way. But if used to improve familiarity and fluidness on interfaces they can bring great value.

That's a unfunded affirmation. People want things to work. They want to work with technology, not work for techonology.

and that's where my point about usability comes into the equation.
The problem we have here is you have a too specific classification of just what 'usability' means'

Apple is loved not because of the desktop effects, it's because of simplicity, well defined goals and technology that helps people get their stuff done.

There's much much more to Apple's success than simplicity alone.
There's the fact that some people are fed up with Windows and Apple is the next biggest commertial platform.
There's the fact their their marketing is second to none.
The fact that to many people Apple are bordering on a religion.

But let's also not over state Apples success - they're still only a tiny fraction of the overall desktop market share.

Thus if you're point was as clear cut as you imply, then OS X would be out selling Win7 (despite Win7 also having desktop effects).

This mentality of users want eye candy must stop. Eye candy without purpose just get in people's way. But if used to improve familiarity and fluidness on interfaces they can bring great value.

I agree, but we are geeks.
At risk of stereotyping, You ask an average girl if she prefers an ugly phone that has 2x the battery life, 2x the processing speed and is easier to use, she'll usually go for the phone that's the same price but half the spec and usability because it is pretty and pink.

If "normal" people really cared more about intelligence over beauty then celebrity culture wouldn't be so big. Countdown would get more viewers than Britain's Next Top Model and so on.
Obviously I'm making somewhat extreme examples, but the point I'm making is most devices work "good enough" already that most normal people with money to burn will spend on the better looking products.

Heck, I bet even you have at least once thought "that looks sexy" at one piece of impractical hardware.

You can't change human desire. Rightly or wrongly most people only care about what they can see and touch. The rest is left for the geeks to discuss.

Everything else resides under the hood and is something only developers for that platform and techies/geeks would notice and/or care.

No disagreements. But did it occur to you that maybe he referred to things like Ubuntu? Whose only recent innovation has been to change the color palette? At least from judging from the press attention.

"
Everything else resides under the hood and is something only developers for that platform and techies/geeks would notice and/or care.

No disagreements. But did it occur to you that maybe he referred to things like Ubuntu? Whose only recent innovation has been to change the color palette? At least from judging from the press attention. "

If the "no innovation" criticism was for Ubuntu, then the OP would have had a point.

The OP actually claimed, however, that "open source software" lacked innovation, which is a VERY easily debunked assertion.

No disagreements. But did it occur to you that maybe he referred to things like Ubuntu? Whose only recent innovation has been to change the color palette? At least from judging from the press attention.

It did - hense why I gave examples of open source that were innovating.